- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:05:40 +0200
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Friday, October 15, 2004, 12:10:37 PM, Bristol) wrote: >> I'm arguing that the dog resource would in Patrick's >> definition be an IR because it has a body of information (its WSHLB> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ WSHLB> This is not Patricks defn! >> medical records) but should not be an IR (per Basel def.). WSHLB> Patricks defn is: "An "information resource" is a resource which WSHLB> constitutes a body of information." WSHLB> Deeper in his message [1] he says "Why not simply state that an WSHLB> "information resource" *is* WSHLB> information -- i.e. a body of information???" WSHLB> I take him be using the word 'constitutes' in the sense of 'is'. If it means "is" in the sense of "is solely" then its the same as the basel definition. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 18:05:41 UTC